It most certainly did. The summary even discusses it.

When your party's leader is against putting the word in your party's title, and when he executes party higher-ups who consider themselves socialist, it's fair to say "no true scotsman" doesn't come into it.

Jesus, would it kill you to read even a Wikipedia summary of what the Nazis were and did? Or are you too afraid about what you might find out?

No, they didn't, but they weren't socialist either.

The original party was a diverse coalition of shitty people, some of whom considered themselves socialists because socialism isn't, outside of the Americas, considered a "bad word", especially in a Europe that was having trouble adjusting to a world war and unfettered capitalism during the industrial revolution. Workers rights are not a bad thing. It had, by that point, been watered down to practically a feel good term, the way "Freedom" is in the US.

Anywho, the socialists within the party pushed to have "Socialist" put in the name. Hitler opposed this. He was out numbered.

Then during the Night of the Long Knives, Hitler had the entire self-described socialist wing of his party purged. Its leaders were executed.

TL;DR - the party wasn't a socialist party, it had that in the name for historical reasons, Hitler hated it but by the time the party rose to power it was too late to do anything about it. But he did do something about the socialists in his party, and it wasn't pretty.

Most likely Firefox will see and change direction. I do think though it'd be ironic if "Thing that relies on X destroys X and then inevitably dies as a result" ends up happening to an Internet browser if people are leaving the browser it's based upon because of the AI shit forced into the latter.

Inertia. Took me several years once streaming had taken off and we pretty much exclusively used our Roku and never used our Dish Network box to persuade the rest of my family that the $60-70/mo we were paying for Dish was a waste of money.

I also suspect a fair number have it for the same reason as their landline, as a reliable back up in case of emergencies. I had to demonstrate our antenna was fine for getting local news stations multiple times to deal with this argument.

I'm pretty sure most have some form of IPTV. Comcast even gave us a free box for their version. And honestly, usable gigabit speeds are available over coax, what's the need for fiber? Fiber is over-rated. If the use case is streaming, gigabit is ridiculously over-spec, you could stream 20 movies simultaneously at Blu-ray quality including all the unnecessary uncompressed audio streams for every language included on that disc all at once and still be able to browse the Internet while watching all 20 of them.

There's probably some use case out there that needs that amount of bandwidth, but by god it isn't "replacing cable".

> Where is your centralized TV Guide that allows you to browse and stream on demand as easily as cable does?

On the "Search" menu of the Roku?

I assume the Amazon Stick, Apple TV The Streaming Box, and whatever Google's pushing these days, have the same feature?

> Remember when Cable TV offered an ad-free television viewing experience, for a monthly subscription fee?

No, I don't. Nor do most people reading this.

In fact, I don't know what country you're talking about, but in the US virtually all TV channels - the subscription channels like HBO excepted - in the US provided over cable TV have had ads. That's because cable TV started purely as an alternative to antenna TV to relay the affiliates of the major networks to places that had poor reception. Over time cable-only TV channels were added to the line up, and some started off without ads, but most quickly included ads as they developed. MTV and CNN have always had ads, from day #1, and they're the two channels most people think of as the OG cable-only channels, although of course they weren't the first, but their predecessors were never as significant or as influential.

This "Cable TV was once Ad free" thing is largely a myth - I'm not saying there were never ad-free channels in the cable line up, but it was so early in cable TV's "More than just the broadcast channel" line up it barely is worth mentioning. Those channels played no part in the development and popularization of the format. Most cable TV growth happened long after the last free ad free channel adopted ads.

No, that would be you.

Some people are so obsessed with how great AI is in their mind they can't take it when others point out obvious problems. You would be one of those people. You need to recognize the technology isn't what it's sold as, and you shouldn't be worshipping a technology like a God anyway.

Except the Amiga. Obviously. That was perfect.

Will you fuck off with this shit?

You car fuckers impose your stupid driving-only life on more or less the entire country, then pretend everyone in America likes it that way, despite the fact most Americans who have visited Europe or NYC (thus experiencing a real city) suddenly realize how great walkable cities are, and then you have the audacity to pretend those arguing in favor of building more walkable cities are somehow forcing you to sell your home and live in city.

No, you can continue to live in your bland personalityless suburban HOA home for as long as you want. You can shag your car's exhaust pipe every morning, we don't care. You can pretend you live in the "Country" because there's a few fields of cows between your ugly neighborhood and the office where you work. Knock yourself out.

We just want to be able to live in a real city, rather than that. Because we don't like it. Nobody sane who's lived in a real city does.

Motorola's are inexpensive, have very few changes to Android, and most still come with headphone jacks.

No, but those cities are at least car centric, so it'll be less of a problem.

Waymo's cars were infamous in SF, which is mixed use for the most part. In one notorious incident, it drove through a street party only for the people who had been having a great time until Waymo's fucked up car decided to plow through it promptly smashed the car to pieces. The people who design these things are unable to comprehend the concept of cities and communities not built exclusively around cars.

The three cities mentioned are, however, built exclusively around cars (well, downtown Detroit is its own thing, but unlikely to attract a lot of traffic anyway, and people generally don't live there.) So it won't be a problem.

> Copium in spades, for not being able to get a driver's license (or maybe have the money to afford a car?). I bet you a chunk of cash you actually could afford one, but it's your fear of actually becoming independent on the bus (or some other equally poor*** dependent transit means) that renders you disabled to operate as a Western adult in a real sense.

What the fuck is wrong with you car nuts?

I've lived in both the UK and US. The UK is nicer to live in, period, because you don't have to drive everywhere. For people who don't have their penis semi-permanently fucking their exhaust pipe as they fantasize about the Porsche they'll afford one day, driving fucking sucks. It's minutes and sometimes hours of having to focus on moving a huge metal object between two white lines without killing anyone. It's boring, it's uncomfortable, it's just shitty in every way possible.

My experience is also most Americans, having visited the UK - or even New York City - and ridden on buses and trains, come back to the US feeling the same way.

What is it about you carfuckers that makes you think everyone is like you?

Why do business schedules need to change with the season? And wouldn't it depend on the business anyway?

I'm curious to know what businesses you're even thinking of. I know farmers hate the time changes. I know office workers hate the time changes. I can't think of any reason a factory would need to open earlier during the warmer months than the colder months.

Who actually wants it?

(Also I can't believe I agree with TFG about something. Urgh. I need to shower.)

...this seems like flawed proof. A 27" screen seems a tad small. True, 25" TVs were popular in living rooms in the CRT era, but LCDs generally start in the high forties for a living room (and are priced well below what that 25" TV used to cost.)

And programme makers are generally taking advantage of the large sizes too. It's blindingly obvious watching HD content from the 2000s when it was designed to be simulcast in 4:3 for legacy TVs and watching TV even from the following decade that they've changed the way they frame shots, include smaller subjects, etc.

Do I think 2K is high enough? Probably! My 50" Plasma is a 720P and I'm not seeing any improvement in quality when I visit Best Buy. But it needs to be proven with normal TV standards.